Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2021) 11 NCLT CK 0406

Ms. Ashu Gupta vs Mr. Sunil Tangri & Ors.

National Company Law Tribunal · Decided on 12 November 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Abni Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Member (Judicial) · L. N. Gupta, Member (Technical)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
(IB)-984 (ND)/2019, IA/327/2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

713 paragraphs · 10,387 words

Per Mr. Abni Ranjan Kumar Sinha (Member Judicial)

The present application is preferred by the Resolution Professional of Web Tech Packagings (India) Pvt. Ltd. under section 45 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) for declaring the transaction of sale of Property bearing No. F-21, Site-C, Surajpur Ind. Area, Greater Noida, U.P as undervalued transaction, which has been made through the Respondent No. 1 and 2 (suspended Directors) Mr. Sunil Kumar Tangri (DIN No. 00803178) and Mrs. Ramani Tangri (DIN No. 01183558). The said property has been sold to Respondent No. 3. The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

i.

“To declare the undervalue transaction of sale of property bearing No. F-21, Site-C, Surajpur Ind. Area Greater Noida, U.P. for Rs.1,00,00,000.00/- void and reverse the effect of such transaction, as it is prejudicial to the interest of COC/Corporate Debtor. ii. To punish the suspended directors for making undervalued transaction for sale of property to defrauding the creditors /members of the Corporate Debtor. iii. To pass any further order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present application.”

2.

The brief facts leading to filing of the instant application are as under:

i.

That this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 25.07.2019 initiated CIRP against the Corporate Debtor and appointed Ms. Ashu Gupta as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Thereafter, the Committee of Creditors ('COC') had approved the continuance of the Applicant, Ms. Ashu Gupta as RP which was further approved by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 15.10.2019. ii. That the Respondent No. 1 & 2 are the suspended Directors of the Corporate Debtor. iii. That the Respondent No. 1 (Sunil Tangri) met the applicant/RP on 09.09.2019 and informed about the following:-

a. The Registered Office, which also happened to be the residence of both the members of suspended board was a personal property of the Directors and has been sold.

b. The property situated at "F-21, Site-C, Surajpur Ind. Area Greater Noida, U.P." which was the factory of the Corporate Debtor and was in the ownership of the Corporate Debtor, has been sold.

iv.

That on 07.10.2019, when the applicant/RP inquired about the sale transaction, it was found by the Applicant that the said property was allotted to the Corporate Debtor vide lease deed dated 21.02.2007 executed between The Greater Noida Authority and the directors of the Corporate Debtor.

v.

Further, the Respondent No. 1 (Mr. Sunil Tangri) executed an agreement to sell dated 06.04.2018 in favour of Respondent No. 3 i.e., M/s Modern Trading & MFG Company for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/- of the said property. In pursuance of the said agreement to sale, the Corporate Debtor had received Rs. 20.00 Lacs on 09.04.2018 in its Oriental Bank of Commerce account as advance/earnest money and the balance payment of Rs. 80.00 Lacs was to be made at the time of execution of sale deed for the said property.

vi.

That the Respondent No. 1 (suspended director Mr. Sunil Tangri) has executed a registered sale deed dated 06.02.2019 in favour of Respondent No. 3 for the said property for a sale consideration of Rs. 1.00 Crore. The said registered sale deed is registered with the office of The Deputy Registrar (Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, U.P.) Further, as per the Registered Sale Deed, the Corporate Debtor received the balance payments of Rs. 80.00 Lacs.

vii.

That the value of the said property for the purpose of stamp duty/circle rate was amounting to Rs. 1,87,44,000.00/-, which is evident from the registered sale deed and moreover, the stamp duty of Rs. 13,12,200.00/- has been paid on the said circle amount of Rs.1,87,44,000.00/-. The above said sale deed was executed for the entire factory of the Corporate Debtor comprising of total covered area of 1242.915 Sq. Mtr. The details of the same are as under:

i)

Covered Area at basement 412.515 Sq. Mtr ii) Covered Area at Ground Floor 412.515 Sq. Mtr. iii) Covered Area at First Floor 398.235 Sq. Mtr. iv) Covered Area at mumty 019.650 Sq. Mtr. With Boundry Wall & Gate.

viii.

The said facts are further fortified from the valuation Report dated 08.01.2018 issued by Er. Birendra Prasad Sing (Valuer), having MCD Regn No. E- 1138 and as requested by the Axis Bank Ltd, SME (SEG) Centre, Delhi-1, Red Fort Capital, Parsvnath Tower, 2nd Floor, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001. The said report was called by the Axis Bank at the time of sanctioning the credit facility to the Corporate Debtor), wherein the fair market value of the said property was Rs.2,16,00,000/- therefore, it is beyond imagination, why the Corporate Debtor has sold the questioned property in less amount compared to market price.

ix.

That the Corporate Debtor was engaged in manufacturing and in printing of labels etc. thus the said sale transaction had not taken place in the ordinary course of business. The alleged sale deed was executed on 06.02.2019, which is within the period of one year preceding the insolvency commencement date i.e., 25.07.2019 (just before around 5 months from commencement of CIRP) in terms of section 46 of the Code and considered as an undervalued transaction in terms of Section 45 of the Code.

x.

That the sale of property/factory of the Corporate Debtor by the Respondent No.1 is an exercise to defraud the creditors of the Corporate Debtor to the tune of Rs.87,44,000/-.

3.

Further, the Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their reply and have asserted the following contentions:

i.

That the instant application is baseless and misconceived and has been filed by the RP to harass and to defame the Suspended Directors (R1 and R2 respectively) of the Corporate Debtor.

ii.

That the entire property transaction being questioned by the RP is in fact a bona fide one and it cannot be called an undervalued transaction. The report of the Chartered Accountant certifies that the total money received by the R1 and R2 is Rs 1,75,00,060/-, which is at par with the distressed value of the property in question and not Rs 1.00 crore as mentioned by the Resolution Professional.

4.

Further, the Respondent No. 3 has filed its reply and has asserted the following contentions:

i.

That in the month of April 2018, the Corporate Debtor offered to sell its property situated at Plot No. F-2 1, Site-C, Surajpur Industrial Area Greater Noida, U.P. to the Respondent No. 3. As the said Property was a lease hold property vesting with the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (UPSIDCL), the transaction for sale of the said Property was done vide the following two Agreements executed between the Corporate Debtor and the Respondent No. 3 :-

a. An Agreement to Sell dated 06.04.2018 for sale of only the "Building Structure" (comprising of Basement, Ground Floor, First Floor and Mumty) existing on Plot No. F-21 Site-C, Surajpur Industrial Area Greater Noida, U.P.;

b. A Memorandum of Understanding cum Agreement to Sell for Land and Building situated at Plot No. F-2 1 Site-C, Surajpur Industrial Area Greater Noida, U.P. requiring the Corporate Debtor to first, surrender Plot No. F-21 to UPSIDCL and get the said Plot re-allotted to the Respondent No. 3 by UPSIDCL;

ii.

A perusal of the aforesaid Agreements would show that for the sale of only the Building Structure existing on Plot No. F-21, the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.1,00,00,000/- while for the entire transaction i.e., sale of Building Structure along with transfer of land, the consideration amount was fixed at Rs.2,25,00,000/- iii. The Respondent No. 3 had duly paid the entire consideration amount of Rs.2,25,00,000/- (Sale Consideration) to the Corporate Debtor in the following manner: -

S. No.Date of paymentAmount paid
1.06/04/201820,00,000/
2.06/04/201810,00,000/
3.06/04/201820,00,000/
4.25/07/201830,00,000/
5.25/07/201820,00,000/
6.31/01/20191,06,06,000/
7.16/02/201918,94,000/
TotalRs. 2,25,00,000/-
iv.

As Plot No. F-21 vested with UPSIDCL, the Corporate Debtor could not have executed a Sale Deed in respect of the same. Thus, a Sale Deed dated 06.02.2019 was executed between the Corporate Debtor and the Respondent No. 3 only for the sale of Building Structure constructed on Plot No. F-21. Insofar as the transfer of Plot No. F-21 is concerned, the Corporate Debtor duly surrendered the said plot to UPSIDCL and a fresh Lease Deed dated 10.05.2019 was executed between UPSIDCL and the Respondent No. 3 for long term lease of Plot No. F-21 in favour of the Respondent No. 3.

v.

That at the time of final payment towards Sale Consideration, the Corporate Debtor expressed its inability to remove his machinery lying at the ground floor of the said Property. Consequently, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.02.2019 was executed between the Respondent No. 3 and the Corporate Debtor wherein the Corporate Debtor undertook to remove the machinery lying at the ground floor of the said property by 31.03.2019. It was also agreed that if the Corporate Debtor fails to remove his machinery by 31/03/2019, ownership as well as control of the said machinery would stand Transferred to the Respondent No. 3.

vi.

That as the Corporate Debtor failed to remove its machinery even till June, 2019, it was mutually decided that, with effect from 01.04.2019, the Corporate Debtor would pay a monthly rent of Rs.75,000/- to the Respondent No. 3 for using the ground floor of the said Property. Pursuant to the mutual understanding, the Corporate Debtor also handed over a cheque bearing No. 047214 for Rs. 72,000/- (after deducting TDS) to the Respondent No. 3 as rent for the month of April.

vii.

The Corporate Debtor and the Respondent No. 3 also decided to execute an addendum to Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.02.2019 detailing the rent and premises vacation date among other particulars. The Corporate Debtor also assured to make balance payment within 15 days.

viii.

That on 24th June, 2019 the proposed addendum to Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.02.2019 was sent to the Corporate Debtor via e-mail. However, no response was received from the Corporate Debtor.

ix.

Upon regular follow up, the Corporate Debtor issued two cheques as per the details below :

ChequeAmount No.
047216Rs. 63000/-
047217Rs. 67500/-
x.

However, the Corporate Debtor informed the Respondent No. 3 to hold the presentation of these cheques until confirmation stating that the Corporate Debtor did not have sufficient funds in the bank amount.

xi.

That no such confirmation was received, the Respondent No. 3 was constrained to send legal notice dated 27.07.2019 for demand of non-payment and eviction for the said property. After the receipt of the above-mentioned legal notice, the Corporate Debtor confirmed the presentation of the said cheques. However, both the cheques were dishonoured and returned. Thereafter, upon follow ups, the Corporate Debtor reconfirmed the presentation of the said cheques, however, the cheques were dishonoured and returned again.

xii.

After continuous follow up, the Corporate Debtor issued D.D No. 829367 for Rs.63,000/- and assured clearance of balance payment shortly.

xiii.

In the month of October, 2019, the Respondent No. 3 was informed about the insolvency proceedings of the Corporate Debtor through the e-mail addressed by the Resolution Professional. The Applicant also expressed her desire to take possession of Plant and Machinery and other fixtures lying at the said property immediately.

xiv.

Thereafter, the Applicant took control of machinery lying at the said property ground floor of Plot no. F-21, Site-C, UPSIDC, Surajpur Industrial Area, Greater Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh- 201308, she also assured to clear the outstanding rent due to the Respondent No. 3 and vide email dated 13.11.2019, the Resolution Professional/Applicant communicated the amount of Rs. 22,000/- as proposed rent for the ground floor of the said Property, which was rejected by the Respondent No. 3 being much below the rent agreed upon.

xv.

Upon denial of the offer of the Resolution Professional/Applicant by the Respondent No. 3, the Resolution Professional/Applicant surprisingly demanded the documents pertaining to Respondent No. 3's dealing with the Corporate Debtor and statement of claim towards Corporate Debtor from the Respondent No. 3 which were duly provided to her vide emails dated 07.10.2019; 15.10.2019; 30.10.2019 & 29.11.2019. Thereafter, no further communication was received by the Respondent No. 3 from the Resolution Professional/Applicant.

xvi.

It is submitted that the claim behind the present application rest on a false and baseless allegation that the Respondent No. 1 & 2 have indulged in the undervalued transaction of the sale of the said Property by selling the same for a consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/- which is less than the circle rate of the said property which is Rs.1,87,44,000/-.

xvii.

As the facts narrated herein above would reveal, the total sale consideration of the said Property (including the Building and the transfer of Plot) was Rs.2,25,00,000/-which was much higher than the circle rate as well as the market rate of the said Property. The said consideration amount was duly mentioned in the MOU cum Agreement to Sell for Land and Building dated 06.04.2018 executed in respect of the said Property and the said agreement is duly available with the Resolution Professional/Applicant. However, the Resolution Professional/Applicant has deliberately not placed the said Agreement on record and have made false averments.

5.

Further, the Applicant/Resolution Professional has filed written submissions and submitted the following:

i.

That the erstwhile director has filed its reply and stated in Para No.3 (page no. 2) that the property in question has actually been sold for Rs.1,75,00,060.00/- inclusive of sale of electrical equipment for Rs.19,00,000/-. Further R-1 erstwhile director has also filed C.A certificate certifying that the payment received Rs.1,75,00,060.00/- in the account of the Corporate Debtor. ii. That the Respondent No. 3 (Buyer) has also filed its reply and stated the actual sale consideration of the above said property is Rs.2,25,00,000.00/- and the same has been paid for entire sale consideration mentioned in his reply at (Para 4(b)) at Page no. 4. Thus, the sale consideration of the said property has 2 different values as follows:-

VersionSale Consideration of the Property
As per Erstwhile Director's VersionRs. 1,75,00,000.00 /-
As per Buyer's VersionRs. 2,25,00,000.00/-
DifferenceRs. 50,00,000.00/-
iii.

The above noted figure demonstrates that the sale consideration of the questioned property has been different from the versions of each other party i.e. (Buyer & Seller) which itself demonstrates that there is a contradiction with regard to the value of the property between the seller and buyer. Further, there is a difference of Rs. 50,00,000/-which the buyer of the property has shown the said amount through following cash payments as per his own reply which is as under:-

DateCash Payments
20/04/201815,00,000.00
15/05/201825,00,000.00
30/07/201810,00,000.00
Total50,00,000.00

(As shown in page no. 33 of R-3 Reply)

iv.

That the above cash payments are not actually been booked/reflected in the book so Corporate Debtor. Also neither cash receipts have been filed by the R. 3 nor any other documents with regard to the cash payment has been filed.

v.

That the cash payments in excess of Rs.20,000.00/- or more is restricted therefore cash payment of Rs.50,00,000.00/- with regard to the money receivable for transfer of an immovable property is also contrary to the provision of section 269SS of The Income Tax Act, 1961.

vi.

Further, the Hon'ble Court has also observed the issue of bulky cash payments of Rs. 50,00,000.00/- therefore Hon'ble Court vide order dated 06/07/2021 directed R-3 to file copy of Income Tax Return.

vii.

Further, it is also stated that the Central Government of India has announced the demonetization on 08/11/2016, therefore the bulky cash transaction of Rs 50,00,000/- in the year of 2018 are very suspicious and cannot be taken into consideration.

viii.

That the cash transaction of Rs. 50,00,000/- has also not been recorded by the erstwhile director in the book of accounts of the Corporate Debtor and further the said facts fortified from the report of Forensic auditor. The verbatim observation of the forensic auditor in his report as finding No. 28 in Page no. 83 of the IA No. 102/2021 is as under:-

"The Corporate Debtor under their books shown a total transfer of Assets Worth Rs. 1.75 Crores in place of actual sales consideration worth Rs. 2.25 Crores by the buyer, it clearly appears that Corporate Debtor diverted the money is Rs. 50 Lakhs which is evident from the records and said sum diverted into cash mode by the directors of corporate debtors and hence recoverable".

ix.

In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the difference of Rs. 50,00,000.00/- in both party's version clearly indicates that there is mala-fide intentions to execute un-registered and unstamped as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act (MOU) dated 06.04.2018 to defraud to the stakeholders, of the Corporate Debtor therefore, the actual sale consideration of Rs.2,25,00,000.00/- has not been shown in the registered Sale deed dated 06.02.2019.

x.

Further, buyer (R-3) himself admitted that the sale consideration of Rs.2,25,00,000.00/- of the property but has failed to prove the payments of Rs.50,00,000.00/- in cash allegedly given to the Corporate Debtor and moreover, the erstwhile director has recorded the same sale to Rs1,75,00,000/- (inclusive of sale of electrical equipment for Rs.19,00,000/-). Therefore, the property has been sold undervalued by Rs. 50,00,000.00/-.

6.

Further, the Respondent No. 1 and 2 have filed written submissions and submitted the following:

i.

That the present Application as filed by the Resolution Professional suffers from non-maintainability vide Section 46(1)(i) of the Code whereby the concerned 'transaction' must be within a time period of one (1) year preceding the date of commencement of CIRP. The CIRP commenced on 25.07.2019 and thus accordingly vide Section 46, the look-back period cannot extend beyond the corresponding date a year prior thereof, i.e., 26.07.2018.

ii.

That the present transaction carried out vide a registered agreement in writing dt. 06.04.2018 as per the above outlined S. 3(33) of the IBC would incontrovertibly fall outside the pale of Section 46 for being beyond the embargo of the look-back of one (1) year preceding CIRP commencement.

iii.

In addition to the above, the RP's application erroneously conflates the 'Agreement to Sell' as applies only to the built-up area (solely the building) to one being for entire property. In doing so the RP has erred in not considering that the total amount received by the Corporate Debtor for the concerned property in its entirety is Rs. 1,75,00,060/- and the same is reflected in the books of the Corporate Debtor and thereafter confirmed by the auditor vide certificate dated 01.02.2020. Thus, by no manner of obfuscation can the RP allege that the transaction pertaining to the concerned property fell afoul of Section 45 of the Code as being undervalued in nature and the same becomes clear by way of the following table showing the break-up of the amounts received and confirmed by auditor.

PARTICULARSAMOUNT
Leasehold land from UPSIDC at F-21, Site-C (Greater Noida)Rs. 55,00,000
Building situated at F-21, Site-C (Greater Noida)Rs. 1,00,00,000
Electrical accessories at F-21, Site-C (Greater Noida)Rs. 20,00,060
TOTAL RECEIPTRs. 1,75,00,060
iv.

That it is settled law and has been held so by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Chand v. Union of India and subsequently elaborated upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Balwant Singh v. Union of India that the purpose of fixing circle rate is solely in order to prevent the exchequer from losing out on appropriate amount of stamp duty and may not have a bearing on the actual market value of an immovable property. Therefore, the RP's reliance on the circle rate in order to determine the actual valuation of the concerned property is erroneous.

v.

The RP's application further fails to address that the property at hand was mortgaged to Axis Bank towards availing loan facility and upon failure to service the said loan by the present Corporate Debtor, the loan account was declared NPA on 31.03.2017 and proceedings (SA No. 359 of 2017) were initiated against the erstwhile directors of the Corporate Debtor under SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT-1), Delhi. Evidently, the concerned property was under litigation and valuation thereof was adversely affected.

vi.

In that regard, valuation of the entire property was carried out by Axis Bank Ltd on 08.01.2018 through a registered valuer, i.e., Er. Birendra Prasad Singh and the following was concluded.

PARTICULARSVALUATION
Fair Market Value of Land (1038m)Rs.1,03,80,000/-
Fair Market Value of BuildingRs. 1,11,73,000/-
Fair Market Value of PropertyRs.2,16,00,000/- (rounded off)
Distress Value of LandRs. 88,23,000/-
Distress Value of BuildingRs. 94,97050/-
Distress Value of PropertyRs.1,84,00,000/- (rounded off)
Realisable ValueRs.1,73,00,000/-
vii.

Clearly thus, the total consideration of Rs.1,75,00,060/- as received from the buyer for the entire property is more than the realisable amount as determined above by registered valuation of the Axis Bank Ltd and there arises no question of the concerned transaction being undervalued vide Section 45 of the Code.

viii.

Furthermore, it is notable that as has also been recorded by DRT vide its order dated 14.01.2019 the entire dues owed by the Corporate Debtor herein were deposited with the Axis Bank Ltd and the amount of Rs.1,75,00,060/- as received above wholly went towards clearing the same and subsequent closure of the NPA account and abating of proceedings before the DRT. Only subsequently did Axis Bank Ltd. vide their letter dated 31.01.2019 handed over to the Corporate Debtor the requisite documentation vis-a-vis the concerned property herein.

ix.

That the sole ground upon which the RP has averred as such pertains to an alleged Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) as supposedly executed between the buyers (Respondent No. 3) and sellers (Respondents No. 1 and 2) of the concerned property. Furthermore, the concerned MoU is also dated 16.02.2019 which is post the completion of transfer of the property to the buyer and is wholly fabricated. However, it must be taken into consideration that such MoU holds no value in the eyes of law for it is neither stamped nor is it a registered document. It is averred that a document as the alleged MoU herein is compulsorily registrable vide Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and therefore vide Section 49 of the said Act no such document shall 'be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered'.

x.

It is settled law that if an agreement is reduced into writing and it purports to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title or interest of any immovable property, the same must be duly stamped and duly registered as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act. Further, where the agreement which is neither stamped nor registered, it cannot be looked into for any purpose whatsoever, in view of the specific bar in Section 35 of the Stamp Act as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra, (2009) 2 SCC 532 and subsequently affirmed in Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama, (2018) 15 SCC 130.

xi.

Neither the RP nor the Respondent No. 3 has ever been able to prove the existence of such an MoU at any stage of the proceedings, in fact it was only with filing of it reply that Resp. No. 3 with unclean hands sought to mislead this Hon'ble Tribunal towards the existence of any such document.

7.

The Respondent No. 3 has filed written submissions and submitted the following:

i.

That the Applicant admits that the Fair Market Value of subject property is Rs.2,16,00,000/- and realizable value is Rs.1,73,00,000/-. ii. That the Subject Property was purchased by the Respondent No. 3 for a total consideration of Rs. 2,25,00,000/-. The Subject Property, after payment of the stamp duties and taxes, has costs the Respondent No. 3 over Rs. 2.50 Crores. iii. That the Agreement to Sell dated 06/04/2018 was executed for sale of only the Building Structure (comprising of Basement, Ground Floor, First Floor and Mumty) having sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. iv. Additionally, a Memorandum of Understanding cum Agreement to Sell dated 06.04.2018 was executed for Land and Building structure, requiring the Corporate Debtor to surrender the Plot to UPSIDCL and get the said Plot re-allotted to the Respondent No. 3 by UPSIDCL. This document reflects the total consideration of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- (1 Crore for Building Structure and 1.25 Crore for Land).

v.

That the consideration amount of Rs. 2.25 Crore was mentioned in the MOU. The said document was available with the Applicant. However, the same has not been disclosed in the present Application. vi. That the applicant was aware about the Lease Deed which was shared with the Applicant vide the email dated 07.10.2019 (i.e. prior to filing of present Application). Despite the same, the said document has not been disclosed in the present Application. vii. That the Applicant was well aware that the total sale consideration is Rs. 2,25,00,000/- i.e. more than the market value of the Subject Property. viii. That the Sale Deed itself gives reference of the Lease Deed. Sale Deed explicitly mentions that- "That the Plot No. F-21, Site-C, UPSIDC Surajpur Industrial Area having area 1038 sq. mtr. And whereas the lease deed in respect of the above-said property has been executed in favour of the Vendor and the same is registered in the Office of Sub Registrar Gautam Budh Nagar. In this sale deed only total covered area:- 1242.915 sq. mtr. is sold out with covered area..."

ix.

Therefore, Applicant was well aware that there is no undervalued transaction, however, she filed the Subject Application only with the intention to avoid paying the mutually agreed rent of Rs. 75,000/-.

x.

While rent of Rs. 22,000/- was arbitrarily fixed by Applicant even that has not been paid till date. No rent has been received by the Respondent No. 3 since May 2019.

xi.

Further the applicant has also filed a police complaint dated 18.01.2020 against the Respondent No. 3, which has also been filed post the rent concerns raised by the Respondent No. 3. Owing to the frivolous nature of the complaint, no action was taken by the Police against the Respondent No. 3.

xii.

Application was originally filed alleging undervalued sale of Subject Property. Applicant alleged that the sale was for Rs. 1 Crore. However, in its synopsis the Applicant has completely changed its stance.

xiii.

Applicant realised that her claim of undervalued transaction was untenable and hence has now shifted the entire focus on the cash transactions.

xiv.

Applicant has not filed any separate application and the allegations made in the synopsis filed by Applicant are outside the scope of present Application which is under Section 45 of the Code.

xv.

In view of the directions of the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 06.07.2021, it is submitted that the cash transactions of Rs.50,00,000/- were not reflected in the Income Tax Return of Respondent No. 3. However, the issue in the present application is limited to the question of undervalued sale of property. The mode of payment is wholly irrelevant.

xvi.

That the transaction took place vide Agreements dated 06.04.2018 and the CIRP was initiated vide the order dt. 25.07.2019. Therefore in any case, the said transaction is beyond the one-year period specified under S. 46(1)(i) of the Code.

8.

We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the averments made in the application, reply filed by the respondents and written submissions filed by the respective parties.

9.

Ld. Counsels for the parties have raised all the submissions which they have averred in their respective written submissions as well as a in the application & reply. Therefore, it is needless to repeat the same.

10.

Before considering the prayer of the applicant, we would like to refer to Sections 45, 46 and 48 of the IBC, 2016 and the same are quoted below:-

IBC Section 45-Avoidance of undervalued transactions.

(1)

If the liquidator or the resolution professional, as the case may be, on an examination of the transactions of the corporate debtor referred to in sub-section (2) determines that certain transactions were made during the relevant period under section 46, which were undervalued, he shall make an application to the Adjudicating Authority to declare such transactions as void and reverse the effect of such transaction in accordance with this Chapter.

(2)

A transaction shall be considered undervalued where the corporate debtor-

(b)

enters into a transaction with a person which involves the transfer of one or more assets by the corporate debtor for a consideration the value of which is significantly less than the value of the consideration provided by the corporate debtor, and such transaction has not taken place in the ordinary course of business of the corporate debtor.

IBC Section 46-Relevant period for avoidable transactions.

(1)

In an application for avoiding a transaction at undervalue, the liquidator or the resolution professional, as the case may be, shall demonstrate that—

(i)

such transaction was made with any person within the period of one year preceding the insolvency commencement date; or

(ii)

such transaction was made with a related party within the period of two years preceding the insolvency commencement date.

(2)

The Adjudicating Authority may require an independent expert to assess evidence relating to the value of the transactions mentioned in this section.

IBC Section 48-Order in cases of undervalued transactions.

The order of the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of section 45 may provide for the following:-

(a)

require any property transferred as part of the transaction, to be vested in the corporate debtor;

(b)

release or discharge (in whole or in part) any security interest granted by the corporate debtor;

(c)

require any person to pay such sums, in respect of benefits received by such person, to the liquidator or the resolution professional as the case may be, as the Adjudicating Authority may direct; or

(d)

require the payment of such consideration for the transaction as may be determined by an independent expert.

11.

On conjoint reading of these provisions, we observe that in order to establish whether a transaction is undervalued transaction or not, the applicant is required to establish the period shown in Section 46(1) of IBC. As per Section 46(1)(i) & (ii) of IBC, if the transaction is made with any person other than related party then the period of such transaction shall be one year preceding the insolvency commencement date and if the transaction is made with a related party then, the period of two years preceding the insolvency commencement date. Therefore, the insolvency commencement date is the relevant date to consider the transaction as undervalued transaction or not?

12.

Applying this principle, when we consider the case in hand, then it is seen that the CIRP (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) of the Corporate Debtor was commenced on 25.07.2019, whereas the above-referred sale deed was executed on 05.02.2019 in favour of the respondent no. 3 by the respondent no. 1, Mr. Sunil Tangri, the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor.

13.

The first contention of the respondents is that since the agreement to sale was executed on 06.04.2018 and the advance/earnest money was paid on 09.04.2018. Therefore, the said transaction is beyond the period of one year preceding the insolvency commencement date.

14.

At this juncture, we would like to refer to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act (TP Act) and the same is quoted below:-

Section 54 in The Transfer of Property Act, 1882

54.

"Sale" defined.-"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.

Sale how made.- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.

In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.

Contract for sale.-A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.

15.

A bare perusal of the provision shows that effect of a contract for sale is also referred to in Section 54 of TP Act, which says that a contract for the sale of immoveable property does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property and this is also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Meghmala & Ors. vs G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383. Therefore, if a contract of sale does not create any interest in or charge on such property then how the respondents claimed that the said transaction is commenced from the date of agreement to sell i.e., 06.04.2018, that has not been explained by the Respondents.

16.

Admittedly, the sale deed is executed on 06.02.2019, whereas the CIRP was initiated on 25.07.2019. Therefore, the said transaction, in our considered view is well within the period of one year preceding the insolvency commencement dated.

17.

Hence, we find, no force in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the transaction is not within the period of one year preceding the insolvency commencement date. Rather, we hold that the the transaction is within the period of one year preceding the insolvency commencement date.

18.

Now, coming to the next arguments raised on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3.

19.

On the basis of the averments made in the reply filed by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 jointly and respondent no. 3 separately as well as written submissions filed by the respective parties, we observe that on the point of payment of consideration amount, there are contradictions in the statement of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the respondent no. 3.

20.

The contention of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 is that they sold the property after receiving Rs.1,75,00,000/- whereas the contention of the respondent no. 3 is that he purchased the property on payment of Rs.2,25,00,000/-.

21.

At this juncture, on the point of payment, we would like to refer to the relevant portion of the scanned copy of the submissions of Ld. Counsel made on behalf of respondent no. 3, which is reproduced below:-

c. The Respondent No. 3 has paid the entire consideration amount of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- to the Corporate Debtor in the following manner: -

S. No.Date of paymentAmount paidMode of PaymentProof of Payment
1.06/04/201820,00,000/-Cheque No. 000851 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.Exhibit-A
2.06/04/201810,00,000/-Cheque No. 000848 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.Exhibit-B
3.06/04/201820,00,000/-CashExhibit-C
4.25/07/201830,00,000/-CashExhibit-D
5.25/07/201820,00,000/-Cheque No. 000885 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.Exhibit-E
6.31/01/20191,06,06,000/-RTGSExhibit-F
7.16/02/201918,94,000/-Demand Draft No. 486630 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.Exhibit-G
TotalRs. 2,25,00,000/-
22.

At the cost of repetition, we would like to refer to the contention of the applicant, who by placing reliance upon the valuation report, page 37 of the application claimed that the Fair Market Value of subject property is of Rs.2,16,00,000/- and realizable value is of Rs.1,73,00,000/-. and also referred the valuation report filed by the applicant.

23.

Therefore, at this juncture, we would like to refer to the Valuation Report filed by the applicant from page 37 to 48 of the application. The scanned copy of the relevant pages are reproduced below: -

Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment

EL BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH

D.E.(CIVIL) D.G.E. (DE) P.V. P.L. Govt. Approved Valuer, Chartered Engineer, Structural Designer & Surveyor, Approved Valuer From Govt. of India, Income Tax Central Board of Direct Tax of wealth Tax Act 1957] CAT-1-288/1995] M.C.D. Registration No. E-1138

Office: 147- ANSAL CHAMBER-II 6, BHIKHAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI- 110066 Mail - valuer.bpsingh@gmail.com Ph: 26162524, M: 9811010414

IN THE PANEL OF :

THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. NMPC, J.P. ASSOCIATE, P.W.D., (D.A.), DELHI METRO-RAILWAY, DENA BANK, BANK OF INDIA, STATE BANK OF INDIA, P.N.R. 3838, UCO BANK, AXIS BANK, IFCI, HUDCO etc.

Branch Office: K-36F, SAKET, NEW DELHI, 88262-9459 Ph: - 41765812

Consulting Engineers, Valuation for wealth Tax, Income Tax, House Tax, LLC, Gift Tax, Bank Loan, Claims, Formation of Tender & Contract Document for Civil works, Land Surveyors etc.

Ref. No. BPS/Val/Delhi/2010/0495

Date: 08/01/2010

TO

The Vice President, Axis Bank Ltd., SME (SBG) Centre, Delhi-1, Red Fort Capital, Parsenath Tower, 2nd Floor, Gale Market, New Delhi-110001

Valuation Report

As requested for the valuation of Industrial Property No. F-21, built on a land area measuring 1038 Sq. Mtr., Situated at Industrial Area Surajpur, Site C, Village Gulistanpur, Greater Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.), which is owned by M/s Webtech Packaging India Ltd., having its Regd. Off. 163, Bird Floor, Kailash Hills, New Delhi Through its managing Director Sh. Sunil Kumar Tangri M/o Sh. B.P. Tangri B/o 163, Bird Floor, Kailash Hills, New Delhi- 110065 Name of Borrower is M/s Webtech Packaging India Pvt. Ltd.

The valuation report of above property, which was inspected and prepared as per instructed by you, is sent herewith for your records.

1.

Fair Market Value of the Property : Rs. 2,16,00,000/-

2.

Distress Value of the Property : Rs. 1,04,00,000/-

3.

Realizable Value of the Property : Rs. 1,73,00,000/-

4.

Govt. Value (Circle Rate Value) of the Property : Rs. 2,24,20,000/-

5.

Insurance Value of the Property : Rs. 1,12,00,000/-

(I)BASIC INFORMATION
A.Name of the bank branch/MCMC/CMC.:
B.Bank letter No. & date-requesting for undertaking valuation.: As requested by Mr. Nadeem Dr. Rehman (Ref No. AXIS/VAL022V32) Axis Bank
C.Whether valuation was made at the request of the borrower?: No
D.Name of the manager / officer who accompanied the valuer.: No
E.Valuation: whether fresh / revaluation / periodic valuation.: Fresh
F.Date of earlier valuation, if any.: No
G.Name of the previous valuer, if any.: No
H.Date of visit to the property.: 05.01.2018
I.Date on which valuation is made.: 08.01.2018
J.Person(s) in presence of whom valuation is made.: -
K.List of documents produced for verification.: Copy of Lease Deed No. 2550, Dated 21.02.2007.
L.Name of the borrower / borrower account with address, telephone nos. & nature of business.: M/s Webtech Packaging India Ltd.
M.Name / address / telephone no. of the owner/owner(s) of the property.: M/s Webtech Packaging India Ltd., having its Regd. Off: 163, Hird Floor, Kailash Hills, New Delhi Through its managing Director Sh. Sunil Kumar Tangri W/o Sh. B. P. Tangri R/o 163, Hird Floor, Kailash Hills, New Delhi - 110065
IIVALUATION OF LAND
L.Details of property:
a.Details of property offered as secured.: Industrial Property No. F-21, built on a land area measuring 1030 Sq. Mtr., Situated at Industrial Area Surajpur, Site C, Village Gukatampur, Greater Noida, Distt. Gautam Budi Nagar (H.P.)
b.Date of acquisition/purchase of land.: 21.02.2007
c.Value of the property as per regd. Sale deed: Rs. 13,42,655/-
d.Sale/Deed / title deed document no.: Copy of Lease Deed No. 2550, Dated 21.02.2007
e.Area of land (as per document/title deed): 1030 Sq. Mtr.
f.Area of land (as per ROR): 1030 Sq. Mtr.
g.Area of land (as per physical measurement): 1030 Sq. Mtr.
b.Location of the property and parcel address
Plot/Plot No.Plot No. F-21
AtIndustrial Area Surajpur, Site C, Village Ghatampur, Greater Noida
POIndustrial Area Surajpur, Site C
PSIndustrial Area Surajpur, Site C
Fit
DateGreater Ruth Nagar
i.Urban/semi-urban/ruralUrban
Whether the property is situated in residential / commercial / major / industrial areaIndustrial
kClassification of locality - In kind of people staying (high / middle / poor class)Middle class
l.Type of property:
i) Agricultural: In case it is an agricultural land, any conversion to house site plots is contemplatedN.A.
ii) Industrial: If the property is industrial state for what type of activity/industry the property is well suitedN.A.
iii) Residential (any restrictive clauses for sub-etc. To be furnished)Industrial
iv) CommercialN.A.
v) InstitutionalN.A.
vi) Others (specify)N.A.
2.1Title of the property - Free hold / Lease hold:Lease Hold
a.Ownership of the property:M/s Webtech Packaging India Ltd., Sroog its Regd, Off. 163, Blvd. Floor, Kailash Hills, New Delhi Through its managing Director Sh. Small Kumar Tangri W/o Sh. R. P. Tangri S/o 163, Blvd Floor, Kailash Hills, New Delhi - 110055
b.In case of joint ownership whether share is undivided/divided, if undivided, share of each owner:Company Ownership
c.Years paid up by:Details available with owner
d.Land revenue:Details available with owner
e.Land / Building Municipal Years:Details available with owner
f.Wealth tax assessed / paid, if any:Details available with owner
2.2Route:
g.Names of tenants/owners / licensees, etc.:N.A.
h.Forkun in their occupation:N.A.
i.Monthly or annual rent / compensation / license fee, etc. Paid by each:N.A.
ii.Gross amount (except for the whole property):N.A.
3.Brief description of the property:It is a G-1 Special RCC Frame Structure industrial building:
a.Address of the property in detail:Industrial Property No. F-21, built on a land area measuring 1800 Sq. Mtr., Situated at Industrial Area Surajpur, Site C, Village Ghatampur, Greater Noida, Dept. Eastern Ruth Nagar (H.P.)
b.Manuscript Ward No.:
c.Street No.:
d.Survey/Plot No.:Plot No. F-21
e.Tax ID:
f.Police Station (P.S):Notable Industrial Area Site C
g.Villages/Town (City):Buildings of:
h.State:Eastern Ruth Nagar
i.State:Other Products
j.QDimensions of the site as per document:
East to West:
North to South:
In
In
k.In
In
In
In
l.In
In
In
In
m.In
In
In
In
n.In
In
In
In
o.In
In
In
In
p.In
In
In
In
q.In
In
In
In
r.In
In
In
In
s.In
In
In
In
t.In
In
In
In
u.In
In
In
In
v.In
In
In
In
w.In
In
In
In
x.In
In
In
In
y.In
In
In
In
z.In
In
In
In
a.In
In
In
In
b.In
In
In
In
c.In
In
In
In
d.In
In
In
In
e.In
In
In
In
f.In
In
In
In
g.In
In
In
In
h.In
In
In
In
i.In
In
In
In
j.In
In
In
In
k.In
In
In
In
l.In
In
In
In
m.In
In
In
In
n.In
In
In
In
o.In
In
In
In
p.In
In
In
In
q.In
In
In
In
r.In
In
In
In
s.In
In
In
In
t.In
In
In
In
u.In
In
In
In
v.In
In
In
In
w.In
In
In
In
x.In
In
In
In
y.In
In
In
In
z.In
In
In
In
a.In
In
In
In
b.In
In
In
In
c.In
In
In
In
d.In
In
In
In
e.In
In
In
In
f.In
In
In
In
g.In
In
In
In
h.In
In
In
In
i.In
In
In
In
j.In
In
In
In
k.In
In
In
In
l.In
In
In
In
m.In
In
In
In
n.In
In
In
In
o.In
In
In
In
p.In
In
In
In
q.In
In
In
In
r.In
In
In
In
s.In
In
In
In
t.In
In
In
In
u.In
In
In
In
v.In
In
In
In
w.In
In
In
In
x.In
In
In
In
y.In
In
In
In
z.In
In
In
In
a.In
In
In
In
b.In
In
In
In
c.In
In
In
In
d.In
In
In
In
e.In
In
In
In
f.In
In
In
In
g.In
In
In
In
h.In
In
In
In
i.In
In
In
In
j.In
In
In
In
k.In
In
In
In
a.Approval letter no. & date of development agitation / municipality etc. Authorizing constructionNot Available
i.Whether funding are certificate from the development authorities / municipality etc. has been obtained:Not Available
ii.Does the land fall in an area included in any town planning scheme or any development plan of government or any statutory body? If so, give particulars:UPSC/C
b.Corner or intermittent planCorner
i.Is a land locked land?No
j.Means and proximity to surface communication by which the locality is served:By surface transport through Motor Road
k.Road facilities:Available
l.Road (load of road and width):Prices
m.If the property is not within the city/town/abundant limit then state the distance of the property from the:
n.Municipal office:Within limit
h.Municipal limits:Within limit
o.Water potentialities:Available
p.Possibility of frequent flooding:Nil
q.Underground sewerage system availability:Available
r.Drainage systems available:Available
s.Is power supply available in the site?Available
t.Development of surrounding areas:Developed
u.Possibility to duly advertise the school, college, hospital, market, bus stand, railway station etc.Only advertises are available nearby.
4.3Location advantages:Yes, situated at Prime Location
Location disadvantages (details):No
h.Other issues/points:
i.Has the whole or part of the land been notified for acquisition by government or any statutory body? If yes, give date of the notification:No
k.Has any contribution been made towards development or is any demand for such contribution still outstanding:Fully developed
l.Whether covered under any state/central govt. documents (e.g. urban land calling act) is notified under agency area/scheduled area/employment area:No.
a.Sales:
I. Give instance of value of immovable property in the locality. If available, indicating the name and address of the property, registration no. 5th price and area of the land sold.Sales balances are not readily available
II. If new instance are not available or not noted upon, please furnish of the basis of arriving at the land/office rate.Basis of land property dealers and other relevant sources etc.
III. Land rate adopted in this valuation (Market)Rs. 10,000/- per Sq. Mtr.
b.Valuation:
c.Previous valuation details:N.A.
The detail of the previous valuation:N.A.
h.Present valuation detail: (Note the registered value should discuss in detail his approach in valuation of the property and indicate how the value has been arrived at, supported by necessary calculations.) Valuation of Property On Market RatesLand & Building Method Land: 1938 Sq. Mtr. x Rs. 101,000/- = Rs. 1,03,00,000/- Building: 11172 Sq. Ft. x Rs. 1000/- = Rs. 1,11,73,000/- Total Market Value = Rs. 2,11,53,000/- Days Rs. 2,14,00,000/-
Genl. Value (Circle Rate Value)Land: 1938 Sq. Mtr. x Rs. 7,600/- = Rs. 78,00,000/- Building: 1938 Sq. Mtr. x Rs. 14,000/- = Rs. 1,45,32,000/- Total Cost of Genl. Value = Rs. 2,24,28,000/- Rs. 2,14,00,000/-
Market valueRs. 68,23,000/-
Business Value of LandRs. 1,04,00,000/-
Discount of Market valueRs. 1,93,00,000/-
Redeemable estimation of the property in case of distress rate, in case, the bank will sell the property through proceedings.

VALHATKOS SHEET

Property No. F-71, Industrial Area Suragpur, Site C, Greater Noida (D. P.), BASIS OF VALHATKOS

III. Valuation of building
1.Basic information of the building (land details in part a)
a.Type of building : (residential / commercial / industrial)Industrial
b.Year of commencement of construction and year of completion2007
c.Type of construction : load bearing main/first frames/land frameECL Frame Structure
d.Estimated future lifeSix years
e.What is the floor space index permissible and percentage usually utilizedAs per 5yr limit
f.Approved letter note date of development authority / municipality / local body indicating construction of the building. Please attach a copy of the approved letter.Not Available
g.Whether the construction has been made as per approved plan? If not, please list the deviations made from the approved plan:Not Available
h.1. Built up area: G+1GP - 5586.52 Sq. Ft. FP - 5586.52 Sq. Ft. Total Covered area - 11173 Sq. Ft.
i.ii. Carpet area: G+111173 Sq. Ft.
j.iii. School-le-gra: G+111173 Sq. Ft. Ft.
k.Is the building owner-occupied / tenured / built?100% Owner occupied
l.If the partly owner - occupied specify portion and extent of area under owners' occupationOwner
m.Whether the property is under rent (partial etc.)N.A.
n.Names of tenants / owners / lessees, etc.N.A.
o.Forthing in their occupationN.A.
p.Monthly or annual rent/compensation / license fee, etc. Paid by eachN.A.
q.Drugs amount received for the whole propertyN.A.
r.Are any of the occupants related to, or does business associates of the owner?N.A.
s.In separate amount being recovered for the use of fixtures like free devices, refrigerators, cooking ranges built in wardrobes, etc. or for service changes, if any, to be borne by the ownerN.A.
1.Give details of water and electricity charges, if any, to be borne by the owner.Detail with the owner
2.Is any dispute between landlord and tenant regarding rent pending in a court of law?N.A.
3.Has any standard rent been fixed for the premises under any law relating to the control of rent.N.A.
4.Has the tenant to hear the advice of part of the cost of repairs and maintenance/ time particulars.N.A.
5.If a lot is installed, who is to hear the cost of maintenance and operations owner or tenant?N.A.
6.If a pump is installed, who is to hear the cost of maintenance and operations owner or tenant?Owner's
7.Who has to hear the cost of electricity charges for lighting of common space like entrance hall, doors, postage, compound, etc. Owner or tenant?Owner's
8.What is the amount of property tax? What is to have in time details.Details with the Owner
9.Is the building insured? If so give the policy on, answer for which it is insured, risks covered and the annual premium.Building Insurance Value Rs. 1,12,00,000/-
10.Whether open date statutory dues such as property tax, municipal tax and other surgeries if any, have been paid.Details with the owner
11.Technical details of the building
12.Number of doors or angles of room floor including bedrooms, if any.1/2-2 1/2 - 1/2
13.1 G+111173 Sq. Ft.
14.Plants area floor-wise
15.G+111173 Sq. Ft.
16.Condition of the building
17.Uncover: excellent, good, normal, poorGood
18.Uncover: excellent, good, normal, poorGood
19.Type of installationSpecial Existing
20.Drugs and windows (floor-wise)MS
21.Flooring (floor-wise)CC
22.Wall flooring (floor-wise)Planned
23.Specifications of construction (floor-wise) in respect of :
24.Description
25.FoundationSpecial Existing
26.Role
27.SuperintendentROD Frame Structure
dJolary/Govt & windowsMS
eRCC worksRCC
fPlasteringPlastered
gFlooring, during, duringCC
hSpecial Feeding as Marble, Granite, Wooden Paneling, Drills etc.RA
iRoofing including washer proof courseRCC
jDrainageAvailable
kSpecial architectural or decorative features, if any
li. Internal wiring - (concealed/external)Concealed
ii. Class of fittings, Supplies/ordinaryOrdinary
mSanitary installationAs per requirement
nNo. of geysers
oClass of fitting, superior / ordinaryOrdinary
pCompound wall
iHeight and Length2 Mtr. in the Periphery
iiType of constructionBrick Wall
qNo. of hbs and capacity
rUnderground sump - capacity and type of constructionNA
sOverhead Tank
iWhere LocatedTerrace
iiCapacity1000 Ltr.
tPumps - No. And Their Horse Power
uRoads and paving within the compound, approximate area and type of pavingPiece
vSewage Disposal - whether connected to public sewers, if septic tanks provided no and capacityConnected to public sewers
wQuality / Class of constructionGood

6. TOTAL ABSTRACT OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY

Govt. Value (Rs.)Market Value (Rs.)Distress Side Value (Rs.)
Part - ALandRs. 78,00,000/-Rs. 1,03,00,000/-Rs. 88,23,000/-
Part - BBuildingRs. 1,45,32,000/-Rs. 1,11,73,000/-Rs. 94,97,000/-
Extra items
Attendings
Miscellaneous
Services
TOTALRs. 2,24,20,000/-Rs. 2,15,53,000/-Rs. 1,83,20,000/-
SayRs. 2,16,60,000/-Rs. 1,84,00,000/-

VALUATION SHEET

Property No. F-21, Industrial Area Surajpur, Site C, Greater Noida (U. P.), BASIS OF VALUATION:

DECLARATION

I/we hereby declare as under:

A. The information furnished above is true to the best of My / Our Knowledge and Belief. B. Neither Mr / We Nor Also Associate have any direct or indirect interest in the Advance or assets Valued. C. I/We are Neither related to the owner of the property which is being valued nor the Officers of the Branch from which the Borrower Prepares to Mortgage the Property Being Valued / Already Mortgaged to the Branch. D. The property was physically inspected by Mr. Snell Ramat On 05.01.2019 Along with (Name of the Snell official Accompanied, if any). E. The Title Deed (S) of the property under valuation is available with the Bank. F. The property is identified by 05.01.2018. G. This valuation is prepared without any prejudice or bias to any person or institution. H. This report is prepared based on available documents during My / Our visit to the site and Discussions made with the owner of the property.

I. The legal aspects are not considered in this valuation. J. The value of Land is taken into account by making due inquiries to the legality and ascertaining the safe value of the properties in the locality. K. Any Additions / Alterations made to the property after the date of valuations shall not fall under the scope of the report. L. We are neither the auditors or the Owner of the Property (IES) and their Street Associates nor are we the statutory auditors to the branch from which the loan is proposed to be availed. M. It Hereby Certified that the Percent Market value of the above property is, is, My/ Our Opinion No. 2,16,00,000/- and the estimated limitation value under the prior sale will be Rs. 1,04,00,000/- N. I/ We have not been dismissed or removed from Govt. involved or Consented of an offence connected with any Proceeding of Income Tax Act, Wealth Tax, Act Of G.B. Tax, Act Of Sale been Disclosed By the Bank / Financial Institution / Govt. Department / Public Sector Enterprise / Body Corporate Etc. O. This Valuation report Contains 15 page Only P. Photographs of the Asset Valued Exchanged

Valuation report check-list

Please ensure that the following important provisions are in order to the valuation report:

1.

Full names of all property owners are mentioned. Address of the property is ☐ ☐ mentioned and is same as those title deed

2.

Boundaries of the property are mentioned as per both, title deed and actual ☑ ☐ observations

3.

Clearly mentioned that property has been identified by the borrower on his own ☑ ☐ based on the address

4.

Type of property is clearly mentioned (averages agricultural, residential, ☑ ☐ commercial, industrial etc.)

5.

If land, clearly mentioned whether the land is land lurined plot or independent land ☒ ☐ a. Only "Yes" or "No" should be mentioned. "Not applicable" should not be ☐ mentioned here

6.

If vacant land, clearly mentioned that proper demarcation and fencing has been ☒ ☐ done

7.

If building, clearly mentioned that construction has been done according to the ☑ ☐ building plan approval ☐ a. If not, deviation should be clearly specified

8.

If building, clearly mentioned that building top/completion certificate has been ☒ ☐ obtained from competent authority

9.

Clearly mentioned whether access to the property is available ☐ a. Only "Yes" or "No" should be mentioned. "Not applicable" should not be ☐ mentioned here

10.

Basis for arriving at government value has been mentioned and necessary ☑ ☐ documents have been enclosed

24.

On perusal of the said Valuation Report, we observe that at page 42, it is mentioned that the Realizable value estimation of the property is Rs.1,73,00,000/- and the Fair Market Value of subject property is of Rs.2,16,00,000/-.

25.

And on the basis of aforesaid facts, R-3 claimed that they have paid much more than of the realizable value.

26.

At this juncture, we would like to refer to the written submissions filed by the Resolution Professional/applicant. The RP at page 5 of its written submissions confined this prayer by stating that “Therefore, the Corporate Debtor should be compensated by Rs. 50,00,000/- by the respondents as well as all the respondents are in collusion with each other & have caused financial dent to the Corporate Debtor”. The scanned copy of the relevant portion of the written submissions filed by the RP is reproduced below:-

Exhibit reproduced from the original judgment

Further, it is also stated that The Central Government of India has announced the demonetization on 08/11/2016 whereby the bank notes of Rs 500 & Rs 1000 were banned with intent to reduce the use of illicit and counterfeit cash therefore the bulky cash transaction of Rs 50,00,000/- in the year of 2018 are very suspicious and cannot be taken into consideration.

5.

That it is further pertinent to mention here that the cash transaction of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs Only) has also not been recorded by the erstwhile director in the book of accounts of the corporate debtors and further the said facts fortified from the report of Forensic auditor. The verbatim observation of the forensic auditor in his report as finding No. 28 in Page no. 83 of the I.A No. 102/2021 is as under:-

"The Corporate Debtor under their books shown a total transfer of Assets Worth Rs. 1.75 Crores in place of actual sales consideration worth Rs. 2.25 Crores by the buyer, it clearly appears that Corporate Debtor diverted the money is Rs. 50 Lakhs which is evident from the records and said sum diverted into cash mode by the directors of corporate debtors and hence recoverable".

In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this is the finest case of undervalued transaction of the property as the buyer has stated in his reply that the sale consideration of Rs. 2,25,00,000.00/- (Rupees Two Crore Twenty Five Lacs Only) and in the other hand the erstwhile director recorded the sale consideration at Rs. 1,75,00,000.00/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Five Lacs Only) inclusive of sale of electrical equipment for Rs. 19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lacs Only) therefore, the difference of Rs. 50,00,000.00/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs Only) in both party's version clearly indicates that there is mala-fide intentions to execute un-registered and un-stamped as per the provisions of The Indian Stamp Act(MOU) dated 6/4/2018 to defraud to the stakeholders, of the corporate debtor therefore, the actual sale consideration of Rs. 2,25,00,000.00/- (Rupees Two Crore Twenty Five Lacs Only) has not been shown in the registered Sale deed dated 06/02/2019.

Further, buyer (R-3) himself admitted that the sale consideration of Rs. 2,25,00,000.00/- of the property but has failed to prove the payments of Rs. 50,00,000.00/- in cash allegedly given to the Corporate Debtor and Moreover, the erstwhile director has recorded the same sale to Rs 1,75,00,000/- (inclusive of sale of electrical equipment for Rs. 19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lacs Only) therefore, the property has been sold undervalued by Rs. 50,00,000.00/- therefore, the Corporate debtor should be compensated by Rs. 50,00,000/- by the Respondents as all the Respondents are in collusions with each other & have caused financial

27.

When we consider the averments made in the written submissions filed by the applicant along with the averments made in the application then it is seen that by filing the written submissions, the applicant has changed his stand and confined her prayer in respect of the differential amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- only on the basis of contradictory statements by the respective respondents in their written submissions.

28.

We observe the applicant has produced the Forensic Auditor's report and on perusal of that it is seen, the sale consideration amount of Rs.1,75,00,000/- is reflected in the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor and the mode of payment and amount received by the Corporate Debtor is also reflected in the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor. Of course, it is mentioned in the Forensic Auditor's report that payment of Rs.50,00,000/- is not reflected. Rather the said fund was diverted.

29.

At this juncture, we would also like to refer to para 11 of the written submissions filed by the respondent no. 3. The scanned copy of the Para 11 of the written submissions of the respondent no. 3 is reproduced below:-

11.

In view of the directions of the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 06/07/2021, it is humbly submitted that the cash transactions of Rs. 50,00,000/- were not reflected in the Income Tax Return of Respondent No. 3. However, the issue in the present application is limited to the question of undervalued sale of property. The mode of payment is wholly irrelevant.

30.

On the basis of the averments made in the written submissions, we observe that in view of the directions given by this Bench vide order dated 06.07.2021, the respondent no. 3 has admitted this fact that the cash transaction of Rs.50,00,000/- is not reflected in the IT returned filed by the respondent no. 3.

31.

We observe that the stand of the respondent no. 1 and 2 is that they have not received the cash payment of Rs.50,00,000/-. Rather, the entire transaction was made on the payment of consideration amount of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-. On the basis of the Valuation Report, the realizable amount receivable is of Rs.1,73,00,000/- and the Fair Market Value of subject property is of Rs.2,16,00,000/- But as per the submissions of the purchaser (R-3), the property was purchased by him at the rate of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- out of which he claimed that Rs.50,00,000/ was paid in cash. The R- 3 further admits that the said cash transaction was not reflected in the IT returns filed by the respondent no. 3.

32.

At this juncture, at the cost of repetition, we would also like to refer to the submissions of the R-3. The Ld. Counsel for R-3 submits that the mode of payment is irrelevant in a proceeding u/s 45 of IBC. We notice that though the respondent no. 1 and 2 have denied the acceptance of cash payment of Rs. 50,00,000/ but failed to convince the Bench as to why an incorrect statement regarding payment of consideration amount would be made by the R-3. Therefore, we agree to the submission made by the R-3, that the consideration amount of the aforesaid transaction was Rs. 2,25,000,00/ out of which payment of Rs. 50,00,000/was made in cash.

33.

So, under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid property of the Corporate Debtor was sold at the consideration amount of Rs.2,25,00,000/- but the total amount of transaction reflected in the books of account of the Corporate Debtor as per the Auditor's report is Rs.1,75,00,000/-only. Therefore, there is a difference of Rs.50,00,000/- but this transaction cannot be termed as undervalued transaction as per the Valuation Report and the Fair Market Value available on the record. And Under Section 46 of the IBC, 2016 the Valuation Report shall also be taken into consideration. By filing of the written submission, the RP also admits that the property was sold at the rate of consideration amount of Rs.2,25,00,000/-, which is more then the the realizable amount receivable, as per valuation report and the Fair Market Value.

34.

So far as the question of recovery of differential amount of Rs.50,00,000/- is concerned, as per the Forensic Auditor's Report, the amount was diverted that shall be taken into consideration under Section 66 of the IBC, filed by RP being IA no. 102/2021 and not under Section 45 of the IBC. Hence, we are of the considered view that the applicant failed to convince that this transaction comes under Section 45 IBC. Hence the applicant prayer to declared the said transaction u/s 45 IBC is hereby rejected. But it shall be considered in IA 102/2021, filed u/s 66 of IBC,2016.

35.

Before parting with the order, since it has been brought to our notice that cash transaction of Rs. 50,00,000/ purported to have taken place between R-3 on the one side and R-1 & R-2 on the other side is not reflected in the IT Return of the R-3, and the cash transaction is also prohibited under the law, hence the Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned officer of the Income Tax Department for information and action in accordance with the provision of law.

36.

Accordingly, the present application is hereby dismissed.